Pathfinder's "Playing a Monster" system in 3.5?

[Eldan]

So, I've recently heard about Pathfinder's system for playing monstrous creatures as PCs.

Short version, for those who don't know what I'm talking about: instead of bothering with racial hit dice and level adjustment for most creatures, the creature's challenge rating is treated as it's ECL. However, you do not gain the creature's attribute modifiers, instead you just start with the attributes as written in the entry. So, an Ogre would not have +10 strength, -2 dex, and so on, he would just start with 20 strength and 8 dexterity, and, since it's challenge rating is 3, an ogre fighter 1 would be treated as a level 4 character, despite having 5 hit dice total.

What do people think of this, in terms of balance? I'm sure that with the wealth of material out there, there would be no shortage of monsters that would be unbalanced this way, but in general, does this sound like a good idea to import into 3.5? It probably can't be much worse than the RHD/LA system, which is a mess.

Finally, one more thing: 4d6b3 should, technically, be more or less equivalent to the elite array, while having the normal monster stats (which is, basically, a base 10 or 11 in every stat) would be equivalent to just rolling 3d6. So, by this system, base races get the elite array for free. How would you say monster balance would change if the Pathfinder system was used, but with straight 3d6 instead of just using the monster's stats (which would allow for some variety in stats, at least).

[Prime32]

I prefer this system (http://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Races_of_War_(3.5e_Sourcebook)/Playing_Unusual_Races#Powerful_Races).

[Eldan]

Method 1, you mean? It's more or less the same, except for the different way to derive stats, so I'd say the basic point still stands.

[Gnaeus]

What do people think of this, in terms of balance? I'm sure that with the wealth of material out there, there would be no shortage of monsters that would be unbalanced this way, but in general, does this sound like a good idea to import into 3.5? It probably can't be much worse than the RHD/LA system, which is a mess.


I can't say that it is worse than RHD/LA, which is pretty broken.

I will say that (for example) a CR 9 Fighter has 9d10 hp, 24 base skill points, +9 bab, 10 feats.

A CR9 black dragon has 16d12 hp, +16 BAB, 114 base skill points, 8 feats, Water Breathing, Acid Immunity, Frightful Presence, Breath Weapon, Flight, Swim Speed, Dr5/Magic, AC24 before armor or items, a claw/claw/bite/wing/wing/tail natural attack routine, and a little bit of sorc casting. That was just the first example that I looked at, I may be able to do better.

Edit: Oh, if I change the feat system back to 3.5, fighter has 9 feats, dragon has 6.

[Eldan]

Mhm. As I thought: doesn't work either. Perhaps Pathfinder has it's monsters balanced for this?

Quick check:
The CR 10 black dragon has 12d12 HD, +15 natural armour, DR 5/magic, 200 ft. fly speed, 60 ft. land speed, 10d6 acid breath weapon, casting as a first level sorcerer, 6 feats and water breathing.

Yeah, that seems more in line. But, honestly, also pretty weak for a monster.

[Gnaeus]

I think it still comes down to the "real fix" of the LA system. Look at the critter, compare with the power level (including classes and optimization) of your players, and adjust on a case by case basis, using CR or LA as a very loose guideline.

[Eldan]

Oh, sure. But something like a quick system that actually worked, more or less, would have been a blessing. Especially if you can tell it to your players as a guideline when they start building characters.

Telling them "Make a character before next session, oh, and LA is a loose guideline that can change pretty much any amount up or down" won't help much.

[Gnaeus]

For another good example, Hound Archon. CR 4 (too low), HD+LA 11 (too high).

6d8 hp, +6 bab, Greater teleport at will + a ton of other useful spell likes. 72 base skill points (CR 4 fighter has 14). And a nice range of immunities.

As a general rule, I will go out on a limb and say that the CR system would give way overpowered characters if they have the Outsider or Dragon types. (since those types have full bab, good skill points, usually more HD than CR and special abilities).

[Violet Octopus]

I have a werewolf ranger 3 in the game I DM (everyone else being level 4). His natural armor and DR 10/silver make him just a bit too difficult to damage, and throwing lots of mages or warriors with silvered weapons at him would threaten game verisimilitude for now. Fortunately the player is ok with houseruling the DR/silver to scale by level.

Of course, werewolf isn't exactly the most out-there monster PC. But compared to 3.5, it's at least playable at low level, and having most of the stats in the right ball park makes it easier to identify and compensate for problems that arise in play.

[Greymane]

I've run into that same wish, Eldan. A quick system to reference for this sort of thing would be a blessing, but there isn't one. There's just too many variables with the monsters of equivalent CR. I will say that it's a bit kinder to most monsters with this method, making a lot more of them viable for actual play.

In my games, the monsters keep their modifiers, but I, as a DM, assign a point buy to them. How high that point buy is depends entirely on what monster they've chosen (so probably a straight 10 on a lot of things with Outsider or Dragon HD), and also depending on how much the rest of the players want to optimize.

With Monster PCs in a 3.X game, I just think that's the best we're going to get outside more intense homebrew.

[Prime32]

Mhm. As I thought: doesn't work either. Perhaps Pathfinder has it's monsters balanced for this?Pathfinder has reworked a few monsters to have more abilities and HD closer to their level, but I haven't looked at the entire Bestiary.

[Curious]

Paizo actually posted something about PC CR. That is, CR for characters with PC levels equals level -1. So, according to that method, someone who wanted to make a Hound Archon would take his first level in paladin, say, when everyone else was 6th level.

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I don't bother with LA. If someone wants to play a monster, I'll put together a full 20 level racial class for it; if I can't make it fit in that context, I'll just assess an XP penalty and call it good.

[Eldariel]

Oh, sure. But something like a quick system that actually worked, more or less, would have been a blessing. Especially if you can tell it to your players as a guideline when they start building characters.

Telling them "Make a character before next session, oh, and LA is a loose guideline that can change pretty much any amount up or down" won't help much.

The problem is, this system relies on CR working. Since CR is the single most borken system in 3.5 (even to the excess of LA) with the numbers all over the place (and dependent on things like party optimization level, the exact feats the monster decides to pick, how competently it uses its spellcasting and so on), it's just impossible. PF isn't much better; its CR is just as stupid as 3.5's.

That said, it's better than LA. LA means big, monstrous characters like Giants actually have less HP than the humanoids. I mean, wut?